|
|
Policy Regulation and Trade Technical Working Group Jeff Servoss (Chair) Arizona Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (AZ PARC) Policy, Regulation and Trade Technical Working Group 2nd Annual State Meeting Notes May 20, 2004 Policy, Regulation, and Trade Technical Working Group representatives and their affiliations: Dennis Caldwell, Tucson Herpetological Society James Badman, Arizona State University Bob Gaulden, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department David Kandiyeli, Private Jerry Feldner, Arizona Herpetological Association Rich Gassaway, Private Christy Klinger, Nevada Department of Wildlife Kenny Sharrocks, Private Clayton Lutz , Arizona Game and Fish Department Bryan Starrett, Private Robert Villa, Tucson Herpetological Society Jeff Servoss (Chair), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The agenda that was proposed for the Policy, Regulation, and Trade Technical Working Group (PRT) was as follows (how the item was addressed is in parentheses in italics): 1. Review regulatory priorities identified during 2003 meeting and the progress made on those priorities (Cochise Co. milksnake, Commission Orders 41 & 43, etc.). (Update provided to general AZ PARC membership prior to breakout session. In summary, letters were provided to the AZ PARC membership during 2003 for use as templates in expressing individual concerns regarding the closure of milksnakes in Cochise County and any proposed amendments to Commission Orders 41 & 43.) 2. Discuss, identify, amend, and/or reprioritize other items to be addressed by the PRT TWG [compare/contrast PARC’s Model Herp Regulations to Arizona’s Current Herp Regulations, identify species for adjustments to their regulation (adjusting take limits, season closures, lottery-based season openings), etc.]. (This topic was the main topic of discussion for PRT’s discussion group session and is discussed in detail below.) 3. Review AZ PARC’s role in affecting change in policy and regulation. (This issue pertains to PRT’s ability to formulate positions regarding herp management in AZ on behalf of AZ PARC as a group or via independent comment of its members using tools provided by the PRT. No direction was received to date. Tabled.) 4. Review how the PRT TWG can be more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of the general membership. (This topic was briefly, generally discussed. No strong comments were made that required revisiting the protocols of the PRT with respect to AZ PARC.) Results from Comparative Exercise: PARC’s Model State Herpetofauna Regulations vs. Arizona’s Current Herpetofauna [Title 12 Article 4: Live Wildlife; Commission Orders 41 (Amphibians) and 43 (Reptiles)] Regulations (from Item 2 above): The PARC Model State Herpetofauna Regulations are provided below with the associated PRT TWG evaluative comment provided in italics): Model State Herpetofauna Regulations recommended by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) The objective of this model is to assist wildlife management agencies in creating or modifying their regulations regarding the collection, manipulation, possession, and sale of native and nonnative herpetofauna; and promote consistency, when reasonable and feasible, between adjacent states. An agency’s decision to selectively adopt parts of, or the entire model, will depend upon its statutory authority, available resources, relevance of the recommendation, and stakeholder input. The conservation of wild native herpetofauna populations, sustainable use of those populations, and public safety can be reasonably assured if the agency incorporates the following baseline recommendations: • Establish the legal presumption that all herpetofauna, and their body parts, are protected from collection unless specifically allowed; Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. • Promote enforcement of regulations; PRT was in consensus that the recreational/hobbyist herp community could be an ally to Federal and State wildlife law enforcement personnel in terms of field enforcement. PRT discussed web based information (AZ PARC’s “How You Can Help” web page) promoting field herpers to act as the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement by reporting suspicious activity observed in the field using the “Operation Game Thief” hotline number or other tools yet to be identified. Procedures can be placed on the web that instruct field herpers in this process. PRT discussion also included posting pertinent collecting regulations, in layman’s terms, on the web, if possible, to assist the layman in understanding the regulations and the AGFD policy of enforcement. Legal liability concerns were noted with this recommendation and its feasibility has yet to be determined. Finally, PRT discussed the use of signage as a deterrent to illegal taking of closed season species in the field in areas infamously known for such species. Signs could be prominently displayed in conspicuous locations which read “Illegal take of closed season reptile and amphibian species in Arizona is prohibited. Are you being watched?” with the applicable legal citations included. Avenues for manufacturing of such signage can include Boy Scout projects, etc. • Establish appropriate penalties for violators; PRT was in consensus that current penalties for wildlife violators failed as a deterrent and may not be particularly effective in the prevention of wildlife crimes. A recent case reported in the April 2004 edition of the Tucson Herpetological Society publication, “Sonoran Herpetologist”, is an example of inappropriate penalties. The perpetrator received a $964.00 fine and up to a 5 year revocation of his hunting license for the possession of three Arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnakes (Crotalus willardi willardi), two banded rock rattlesnakes (C. lepidus klauberi), a Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) and one small caiman (species not given). In this example, the street value of seized closed season/restricted live wildlife species is far greater than the monetary penalties appropriated to the violator. If the fines for such activity are far less than the potential monetary proceeds of the illegal sale of said species, where’s the incentive to comply with the law … or the disincentive to break the law? In addition, the temporary revocation of a hunting/fishing license seems to be an inappropriate penalty for a poacher. It becomes a simple cost vs. benefit analysis for the would-be violator. Of course, PRT realized there must be a distinction in the enforcement of wildlife laws that identifies the “intent to sell” from “personal possession”. PRT also recognized that such amendments to wildlife enforcement/penalties are an issue addressed in the State legislative process. More investigation of opportunities for change is required, including using any legal resources the AGFD may have at their disposal to further the process along. • Establish a licensing or permitting system to manage the personal, commercial, and scientific use of herpetofauna; Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. • Regulate the collection, possession, and sale of native taxa, and venomous, invasive, and potentially dangerous non-native taxa (those taxa potentially threatening native species, ecosystems, or human health); and PRT was informed that AGFD is in the process of defining bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) as restricted live wildlife under R12-4-406(D) effectively prohibiting the importation, transportation, or possession of said species except as allowed under R12-4-430, a special license or an exemption under Article 4 required to possess restricted live wildlife or to engage in any activity prohibited by A.R.S. § 17-306 or R12-4-402. PRT will draft a form letter of support of such an amendment for use by the general AZ PARC membership, at their individual discretion. • Centralize the management and regulatory authority for all aspects of native and nonnative herpetofauna into one work unit. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. The following represents an elaboration on the recommendations that PARC believes are the most critical to successful herpetofauna management and regulation. 1) Suggested recommendations for regulating the collection of herpetofauna intended for personal use: a. Require the purchase of a standard fishing or small game hunting license, for the collection of herpetofauna for personal use (e.g. pets, food, fishing bait, or cultural needs). As an alternative to a fishing or hunting license, consider creating a special herpetofauna license or stamp. This special license or stamp could also assist an agency in managing and monitoring the number of collectors, collection trends, create an stakeholder contact list, and establish base funding for herpetofauna management. Currently, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) requires a valid resident or nonresident hunting license for the collection of reptiles and a valid resident or nonresident fishing license for the collection of amphibians. PRT was in consensus that AGFD should require a resident or nonresident “Reptile and Amphibian Collection” license and no longer require the purchase of separate hunting and fishing licenses (or the combination license) for such purposes. A reporting requirement can be associated with the license which requires the holder to report to the AGFD, the number and type of species collected, and approximate locality data. The obvious benefits to the Reptile and Amphibian Collection license are the opportunities for AGFD to 1) gain knowledge of the field herper population (resident and nonresident) in Arizona which is currently unknown; 2) gain knowledge of the number and type of species legally collected each year in Arizona; and 3) provide opportunities for the Reptile and Amphibian Collection license to generate proceeds earmarked for herpetofauna conservation activities in Arizona. Another major topic related to the licensing of reptile and amphibian field activities was addressed by PRT. This issue pertains to the AGFD establishment of a “Closed Season Reptile and Amphibian Photography” permit or stamp which can either be purchased in addition to the resident or nonresident Reptile and Amphibian Collection license or intrinsically included in the purchase of the resident or nonresident Reptile and Amphibian Collection license. The obvious benefits of such a stamp or permit is 1) to allow the harmless, in situ manipulation of closed season species for the sole purpose of photography; and 2) provide opportunities for this permit or stamp to generate additional proceeds earmarked for herpetofauna conservation activities in Arizona. Currently, the definition of “take” prohibits such activities but these regulations have never been enforced or a violation successfully prosecuted in Arizona to date, although, arguably, violations of this nature occur on a regular basis in the field. This special permit or stamp would not authorize the temporary detainment in any device of closed season species, only the harmless, in situ manipulation of closed season species for photographic purposes. This authorization is easily enforced by law enforcement personnel in the field. In other words, “if it’s in the ‘bag’, it’s illegal” (unless specifically authorized pursuant to existing regulations). PRT was not entirely in consensus on this issue as some members had concerns that any conservation benefit gained by the generation of increased funding, for herp conservation purposes, from this licensing mechanism, may be overshadowed by increased photographic pressure on closed season species adversely affecting these species by increasing the rate and duration of stressful encounters with photographers. This particular issue is currently tabled and will be revisited in an effort to achieve consensus. PRT recognizes the significance of Arizona’s native herpetofauna, on the national and international scale, as well as in terms of its ecological importance, and was in consensus that opportunities for the generation of herp-targeted conservation funds should be seriously explored for implementation by the AGFD for the benefit of herpetofauna conservation in Arizona and will be seeking AZ PARC consensus using the current procedural protocols. b. Identify a list of native and non-native taxa that may be collected from the wild, or for species rich states, a list of taxa that may not be collected (i.e. prohibited or restricted taxa). Taxa placed on such a list should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and supported by sound scientific data or the best available information. The natural history, rarity, vulnerability, and rangewide distribution of each taxa should be evaluated in developing this list. PRT will be offering a form letter to the AGFD, for use by the AZ PARC membership, which suggests the season closures of species whose distribution has under gone significant documented decline, is otherwise severely restricted in Arizona, or in the situation where collecting pressure may cause such a decline. The letter will specifically address amendments to Commission Orders #41 (amphibians) and #43 (reptiles) and may be customized to remain consistent with individual viewpoints on the matter. c. Establish seasons, daily or yearly collection and possession limits, size limits, safe and humane capture methods, and geographical areas open or closed to collection. PRT was in consensus that current bag and possession limits set for western diamond-backed (C. atrox) and northern Mohave (C. scutulatus scutulatus) rattlesnakes at four per person per day or in possession live or dead was too high and not biologically justified. General doctrines in wildlife management dictate, in the absence of scientific data, bag and possession limits for wildlife be conservative and error on the side of caution until such time adequate research is conducted which justifies elevated levels of take can be sustained by the target species. PRT was in consensus that other factors such as habitat modification, habitat destruction, indiscriminant killing, road mortality, etc. must be accounted for and do not factor favorably into currently permissible elevated levels of take for these two species. PRT intends to contact any user group that may be affected by this proposal (curio shops, skin trade, entrepreneurs, etc.) to discuss these issues and seek consensus if possible. PRT will then follow through with the development an appropriate form letter to the AGFD, for use by the AZ PARC membership at their individual discretion, which recommends the bag limit be amended to four per person per year or in possession of these two species live or dead. d. Consider allowing juveniles (typically those under the age of 14-16 years) to collect some of the most common (open season) taxa for personal use without a permit or license. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. e. No wild collected native taxa should be sold or bartered, unless regulated by the wildlife management agency. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. f. Specimens held in captivity for any length of time should not be released into the wild. The exception would be specimens temporarily held in the field for photographs or identification. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. g. Live aquatic herpetofauna collected for fishing bait should be used at the body of water where captured, and not transported alive to another body of water. Unused live bait should be humanely euthanized or given to another angler fishing at that site. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response. 2) Suggested recommendations for regulating the collection of herpetofauna intended for commercial sale or use (e.g. biological supply companies, pet dealers, and specialty meat or skin suppliers): Items 2(a-g) below address the commercialization of native herpetofauna. Currently, commercialization of native herpetofauna is prohibited under Arizona law. PRT was in consensus that AGFD should continue to prohibit the commercialization of native herpetofauna and, therefore, does not offer any proposed amendments on this issue. a. Develop a special permit and review process to allow for the limited and closely regulated commercial collection of identified taxa. The fee for this permit or license should be proportionally higher than fees assessed for personal or scientific use, to cover the administrative oversight and regulation compliance of commercial collectors. The permit or license should be required for even the most common native taxa and established populations of non-native taxa. In some cases, the collection and commercialization of non-native taxa may be prohibited to prevent further deliberate human dispersal. b. Identify a list of native and established non-native taxa that may be collected from the wild, or for species rich states, a list of taxa that may not be collected (i.e. prohibited or restricted taxa). Each taxon listed should be considered on a case-by case basis, and supported by scientific data or the best available information. The natural history, rarity, vulnerability, rangewide distribution, and local traditional uses of each taxa should be evaluated in developing this list. In the absence of such information, the agency should err conservatively when establishing collection limits and seasons. c. Establish seasons, daily or yearly collection and possession limits, sex and size limits, safe and humane capture methods, and geographical areas open or closed to collection. d. Specimens held in captivity for any length of time should not be released into the wild. e. Develop guidelines for, and require the use of, aseptic field techniques (aquatic and terrestrial) to prevent the spread of pathogens between wild populations (e.g. Declining Amphibians Population Task Force field techniques). f. Disperse collection activities for all taxa to avoid negatively impacting local populations. g. Require the submission of an annual or seasonal report that includes accurate information on the numbers of specimens of each taxon collected, date of collection, an identifiable geographical location/region where collected, and the buyer. These records should be keep current and made available for impromptu agency inspections. 3) Suggested recommendations for regulating the sale of captive-bred native taxa. Arizona regulations adequate – no PRT response for Items 3 (a-i) below. a. Identify a list of native taxa (e.g. species, subspecies, genera, families, etc) that may be possessed, bred, exported, exchanged or sold without permit or authorization. In some circumstances, it may be easier to identify prohibited or restricted native taxa. b. Develop an annual permit fee and special permitting process regulating the sale of captive-bred native taxa. Permit fees should be used for administrative oversight and regulation compliance, required for even the most common native taxa. c. Provide significant penalties for illegal collections or other prohibited activities. d. Require breeders and dealers to provide their customers with the taxon’s common and scientific name, basic and humane husbandry information, average adult size, human health risks, and the proper disposal of unwanted pets. e. For venomous or potentially dangerous native taxa, require the permittee to develop an emergency bite protocol. f. If the illegal trade of some wild taxa is a concern, set a maximum size limit for specimens (e.g. hatchlings, juveniles) that may be exported, exchanged, or sold. g. The seller must possess and maintain documentation supporting the taxon’s legal origin (e.g. license or permit). h. Develop basic captivity standards for breeders and dealers to ensure that specimens are safely and humanely held. i. Require the submission of an annual report that includes information on: the number of individuals of each taxa currently held, physical location of the collection, number of young born in captivity, number of individuals that died in captivity, and a list of buyers. For rare, valuable, or taxa with the potential for illegal trade, breeders and/or juveniles should be marked with a PIT tag or similar life long, unique and permanent mark. Identification marks should be readily recognizable, non-reusable, and ideally traceable to the breeder. Distribution of identification tags should remain in control with the wildlife agency and tags distributed in conjunction with the licensing process. Items 4 through 6 below were not addressed by PRT during the May 2004 General AZ PARC meeting due to time constraints. PRT intends to reconvene during the interim and formulate a position on these items as time permits. 4) Suggested recommendations for regulating the possession and sale of non-native taxa, including venomous, invasive, or potentially dangerous taxa. a. Identify a list of non-native taxa (e.g. species, subspecies, genera, families, etc) that may be possessed, bred, exported, exchanged or sold without permit or authorization. In some circumstances, it may be easier to identify prohibited or restricted native taxa. ï For all taxa, to the greatest extent possible, assure their accidental escape or intentional release is not likely to result in the establishment of new populations, harm or have an adverse affect on native taxa or ecosystems, or pose a significant threat to humans or domestic animals either by injury or disease. b. Develop a process by which individuals can apply to possess prohibited or restricted taxa. Ideally, the possession of prohibited or restricted taxa will be limited to use in valid scientific research projects, public education programs, or displays in recognized museums, aquaria, or zoos. c. Require breeders and dealers to provide their customers with the taxon’s common and scientific name, basic and humane husbandry information, average adult size, human health risks, and information on the proper disposal of unwanted pets. d. Require the seller to possess and maintain documentation supporting the specimen’s legal origin (e.g. copies of a license, permit, or letter of authorization). e. Develop basic captivity standards for breeders and dealers to ensure that specimens are safely and humanely held. In addition, for venomous, invasive, or potentially dangerous taxa: a. Develop a special permitting or licensing process, with an annual fee. The fee should be used to cover administrative oversight and regulation compliance. Ideally, the possession of prohibited or restricted taxa will be limited to use in valid scientific research projects, public education programs, or displays in recognized museums, aquaria, or zoos. b. Ensure applicants possess or obtain minimum experience in the husbandry of the taxa they intend to keep, before issuance of a permit or license. c. Surplus research specimens or their progeny, should be disposed of to an accredited zoo or aquarium, research institution, or as directed by the wildlife management agency. d. Require submission of an annual report that includes information on the number of individuals of each taxon currently held, physical location of the collection, number of births and deaths, and a comprehensive list of buyers. Breeders and juveniles should be marked with a PIT tag or other life long, unique, and permanent mark. Identification marks must be readily recognizable, non-reusable, and ideally identify the original source. Identification tags should be distributed in conjunction with the licensing process. e. For venomous and potentially dangerous taxa require development of an effective emergency (e.g. bite, escape) protocol specific to the taxa held. 5) Suggested recommendations for regulating the scientific collection or manipulation of native herpetofauna for research, education, display, or salvage activities. All the aforementioned uses could be accommodated in one permit or separate permits. This permit would also allow recognized environmental consultants to conduct inventory work or proposed development projects and to relocate individuals out of harm’s way when necessary. Work with Federally listed taxa, or on Federal or Tribal lands, will require an additional and separate permit. The permitting process should be as quick and efficient as possible, so not to impede or discourage scientific research. a. The permit should be issued for free or for a nominal administrative fee. b. Establish a special application and review process (with qualified reviewers), to evaluate the conservation, scientific, or educational benefits of the proposal. In other words, is the proposed activity in the best interest of the population or taxa? c. Identify a list of native and non-native taxa that may be collected from the wild, or for species rich states, a list of taxa that may not be collected (i.e. prohibited or restricted taxa). Each taxon listed should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and supported by sound scientific data or the best available information. The natural history, rarity, vulnerability, rangewide distribution, and local traditional uses of each taxon should be evaluated in developing this list. In the absence of such information, the agency should err conservatively. d. Each permit should specify the number of specimens that can be collected or manipulated, acceptable methods of collection, disposition of dead salvaged or voucher specimens, and approved handling, marking, or tissue sampling techniques. e. Specimens held in captivity for any length of time should not be released into the wild. Exceptions could be made for specimens temporarily held at the field site (e.g. for data processing, photographs) or licensed wildlife rehabilitators that practice aseptic husbandry standards. f. Require the submission of an annual or otherwise regular report that includes accurate information on the numbers of individuals of each taxon collected, observed, or handled, identifiable geographical location, and the eventual disposition of those specimens collected. These records should be keep current and made available for agency inspection. g. Specimens collected must be deposited in a recognized or accredited public museum or educational institution. h. All agents assisting the applicant should be identified in the permit, and a copy of the permit should be in the possession of the applicant and agents at all times. When possible, background reviews of all applicants and their agents should be conducted to search for wildlife violations within and outside the state. i. Research projects that require the collection of significant numbers of specimens should be geographically dispersed to minimize the impact on wild population. j. Develop guidelines and require the use of aseptic techniques (aquatic and terrestrial) to prevent the spread of pathogens in wild populations (e.g. DAPTF field techniques). k. Whenever possible specimens confiscated by law enforcement, salvaged from future development sites, or captured on nuisance wildlife calls, should be substituted for wild collection. Likewise, captive bred specimens should be recommended if available. 6) Establish a comprehensive list noting the biological and legal status of native herpetofauna (e.g. state or federal endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive, or special concern). In addition, consider the following recommendations: a. Develop a process map or decision tree to add, remove, or modify taxa on the State’s comprehensive list. b. Prohibit the collection of taxa on the comprehensive list without permit or license. c. Provide significant penalties for prohibited activities involving listed taxa, that are proportionally greater than violations for non-listed taxa. d. Develop an evaluation process (preferably through the existing scientific collecting permit process) for requests for the collection, manipulation, or handling of taxa on the comprehensive list. e. Integrate the State’s comprehensive list of taxa, with those of adjacent states or countries. |